Psycho II

Of course, PSYCHO II can't hold a candle to Hitch's original masterwork, but then what film can? The surprise is that it turns out to be a decent little film in itself, purely because it isn't a slavish copy but instead a stand-alone psychological thriller that takes its plot in a different direction to most.

Instead of emulating the then-popular slasher craze of the 1980s, PSYCHO II plays out as a whodunit for the most part. Norman's back on the streets and back in his motel, and the grisly slayings start up once more. But who's the killer? Is it Norman himself, or the young, seemingly innocent girl (Meg Tilly) living with him? Could it be the returning Vera Miles as Lila Loomis, seeking vengeance for her sister's slaying in the original by setting Norman up? Or somebody else with an axe to grind?

While there is the expected bloodshed in this film, for the most part it's deeper than that, working hard to build up a creepy atmosphere. Anthony Perkins is on top form as his most famous creation, and he succeeds in making Norman a sympathetic protagonist; watching this guy losing his mind for the second time is truly a tragic occurrence. The presence of supporting players like the reliably sleazy Dennis Franz and the solid Robert Loggia help to make this an effective horror film all in itself.

Picture talks about Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who has finally been released from the mental asylum where he has been for many years . But he's chased by mistress Loomis (Vera Miles), sister of Marion (Janet Leigh) Crane (murdered previously in the shower). His preceptor doctor (Robert Loggia) will help him for the return . He goes back to the Bates motel and the mansion and the assassinations begin happening again . Meanwhile , he meets an enticing Young (Meg Tilly) who's invited to stay at home . The doctor (Loggia) will try to solve the awful and ominous killings .

The movie is plenty of grisly murders , stabbing shots , horror , suspense , shocks and great load of blood and gore but also a little of dark humor . It's a sequel to Hitchcock's classic continuing cleverly the plot (scripted by Tom Holland) of the former film . In 1960, psychosis (1960) made over 32 million dollars in worldwide box office returns where as this film made over 34 million dollars . The original house set was used and the motel was reconstructed . The killer/Perkins does an authentic slaughter and are utilized in the gruesome and creepy murders axe , knife , cleaver until the amazing final carnage . The motion picture was rated ¨R¨ for crude and brutal killings and scabrous violence and isn't apt for squeamish but abounds blood and guts . Anthony Perkins makes a terrific acting in his classic role . He'll be forever Norman Bates . Jerry Goldsmith music is good , but he copies to Bernard Herrmann classic score . Dean Cundey cinematography is excellent . The film , shot in 32 days , was well directed by Richard Franklyn who has made various fine terror movies (Patrick , road games , visitors) .

When I went to my local video store a year and half ago, I noticed that there were no less than four "psycho" movies there. Having seen the original, I figured that they would all be cash-ins. Two weeks ago I finally hired psycho 2 in to finally prove my point to myself. I was wrong. This movie has everything a sequel to psycho could need. A great plot (probably better than the first one's), excellent direction, and great acting. Perkins is so much better here than in the original psycho that one can't help thinking it's a shame that he passed away. There are heaps of reasons to see this movie, and very few not to if you're a suspense fan. If you liked the original you'll love this, and even if you didn't you'll still love it.

The 1960 'Psycho' is one of Alfred Hitchcock's greatest films and while it is high up in my list of "scariest films of all time" it doesn't stop it from being a personal favourite. Mainly for the cinematography, Hitchcock's direction, the music score and Anthony Perkins.

Hearing that 'Psycho' had three sequels, my immediate reaction was what's the point especially considering the fiasco that was the 1998 remake. It did strike me initially that 'Psycho' was perfect as it was and didn't need a sequel, let alone three as well as a telefilm spin-off and remake. The first sequel, finally getting round to watching the sequels after a little arm twisting, turned out to be surprisingly good. Not just being a worthy follow-up but also a well above average film in its own way. Is it as good as Hitchcock's film? Not a chance, not as scary or as suspenseful. But considering that expectations were dubious 'Psycho II' was so much better than expected.

'Psycho II' starts to drag ever so slightly towards the end and occasionally feels a touch over-plotted. Sadly too the ending is ridiculous and undermines the actually very neat execution of the rest of the film.

On the other hand, 'Psycho II' boasts some very stylish and moody cinematography and the setting is still eerie even in colour. Jerry Goldsmith proves himself to be a more than worthy successor to Bernard Hermann, enormous shoes to fill considering Hermann's score in the 1960 film is one of the most iconic chilling music scores in cinema. Goldsmith's score here is lush and ominously haunting without ever intruding.

Franklin directs beautifully, having a real knack for creating a creepy atmosphere and suspenseful touch, not quite the unequalled Hitchcockian touch but it is the closest the sequels ever get to having anything resembling it. The script is clever and taut with some touches of darkly wicked humour, while the story is on the most part very neatly paced, highly atmospheric and always coherent with some very imaginative twists.

As for the performances, they are also strong. Anthony Perkins returns in his most iconic role and proves that only one person can play this character. Meg Tilly and Vera Miles are very credible too while Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia provide some necessary grit.

In summary, surprisingly good and worthy first sequel to a classic. Doesn't disgrace it at all. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Safe to say that Psycho II suffers from all the prejudices possible. Numberless elements could be used as an excuse to avoid this movie and to place it among other pointless and money-making sequels. Brought out 22 years after the original masterpiece by Hitchcock himself, I can imagine that many fans refuse to give a subjective look at it. Very wrong, though!! Number two is a very worthy and underrated sequel, which brings perfect homage to the Master of Suspense best film. Even though Franklin can't fully live up to Hitchcock's style, he shows a pretty intense and mind-blowing story here. Franklin obviously worships Hitchcock (which was also clear in one of his previous films - Patrick) and this sequels is made with nothing but respect and goodwill. The very creative script - written by Tom Holland - has more than enough positive aspects and perplexing twists to consider the entire movie a triumph. Sure, some of the twists are far-fetched but overall the continuation of the Psycho couldn't be better. It actually takes place 22 years later with Norman Bates judged sane and released from the mental institution. Some people immediately want to forgive and forget but some others are convinced that Norman will soon go crazy again. This last group of people also has a complete plan worked out to make Norman snap again. Soon there are people dying again in the infamous Bates ' Motel but who is the vicious murderer this time??? Psycho II manages to keep you guessing the entire movie and the terrific acting performance by Anthony Perkins keeps you even closer to the screen. If you were a fan of the original masterpiece ( and I can't imagine anyone isn't a fan of that ), make sure you catch this sequel too!! There were made two more sequels after this but you can easily skip then....and whatever you do...keep your hands off the Gus Van Sant remake of 1998. I wish I had!!